We appreciate Ahlgren's interest in our article and are pleased to see that there is probably as much agreement between us as there are differences. The disagreement between our position and Science for All Americans (SFAA, 1990) has to do wirh what is meant by "cultural bias." In our article we discussed how scientific theories are the product of deliberation within scientific communities. These deliberations take place within a framework that is socially constructed and influenced by the history and culture of the scientific community. Thus, as Ahlgren noted as a possibility, when we refer to "cultural bias," the issue to which we refer is by definition pervasive. SFAA seems to argue that cultural bias can occur, but that it is rare and only present in bad science. Furthermore, its effects are corrected via the critique that takes place in the context of justification. Our position is that cultural bias is a part of all science (good and bad) because of its participation in the framework used by scientists in deliberations about scientific knowledge. Indeed, these frameworks (and the cultural bias inherent in them) are required for the development of new knowledge. Thus, cultural bias is unavoidable. Its effects may be positive or negative. We can perhaps avoid some of its most pernicious consequences by being aware of its presence and by including those who have not commonly participated in science to become part of the dialogue. On this last point I believe Ahlgren would agree.
It seems important to point out that the purpose of our article is very different from that of SFAA (1990). We argued that it was educationally important for students to understand a particular view of science that we believe to be based on the best thinking in the philosophy of science. However, it is not the only view. Unlike most parts of the science curriculum for which there is a great deal of consensus (e.g., atomic theory is not in dispute), there is no consensus on many issues in the nature of science. The purpose of SFAA (1990), as we understand it, is to represent a consensus view of what students ought to know about the nature of science. It seems to us that problems arise when a view of science is presented as though it were the consensus view when it is still controversial. Perhaps future revisions of SFAA could capture the diversity of thinking about the nature of science. Since SFAA includes sections on agriculture (pp. 99-103) and health technology (pp.